Step up your game

In today’s Lectorial we got a little bit of a pep talk about blogging from Rachel. Although it was a little confronting to hear we weren’t putting in enough work or effort to impress our tuts – a lot of us (myself included) are barely making the minimum.

I was actually struggling with this, trying to figure out how to make 4 posts let alone more! So the lecture slides were helpful to give me ideas and I guess, inspire me. For starters, I need to remember these posts don’t have to be essays. Also, we’re totally allowed to split to different ideas into 2 posts about the same topic – which would have given me more posts in the past, that’s for sure.

I also made the mistake of forgetting I am a Media student after all (or as Rachel put it, ‘for crying out loud’) and the use of videos, photos and other elements along with text (or instead of!) is entirely optional.

Some of the ideas she gave us were things you’ll be seeing a lot more of on my blog starting now. Things like ‘noticing’ media, lectorial and reading reflections, workshops and even discussing my personal media consumption.

Is there a right or wrong way to interpret media?

The reading written by Alan McKee, along with the latest Lectorial, was one big year 12 throwback. Even though I’ve been finding it pretty hard to read the texts online rather than having a physical copy, I managed with McKee’s work because it wasn’t totally new information for me. He basically was talking about how we analyse the texts that we read and make bias interpretations of them based on our own experiences and past. This also goes along with the notion that no two people will interpret a text the same – and that there truly is no right or wrong way to do so either.

We did study this sort of thinking in year 12 with the media influence theories – things like semiotic constructivist theory, the bullet theory and so on – any other year 12 Media students know what I’m talking about I’m sure. These theories also suggested ways in which people are influenced, from mass media to family and friends. In a way, this is what McKee is talking about – that our own belief systems and morals will help us decide whether we think a text is accurate and if it represents our perception of reality.

the Zodiac

Thursday’s Cinema Studies seminar was a little denser than in the past. Usually the routine goes a little like this; we have a little class discussion at the start, dive into re-watching scenes from the movie watched the week previous and then analyse together. Certainly, we did all of those things. But not only did we discuss the Life Aquatic, but also the Zodiac. I’m personally quite a fan of the Zodiac – I went into the screening without any pre-conceived notions, except that I knew the film was going to be long. I didn’t know anything about the Zodiac killer (aside from the occasional online meme – like the theory that Ted Cruz is in fact, the infamous murderer).

We ended up talking about Mise En Scene and Aspects of the shot with both these films. Last week I already did a little analysis on the Life Aquatic from home when sick, so I’m going to spend this post devoted to the Zodiac.

In order to discuss the aspect of the shot, we re-watched the entire opening scene of the Zodiac. Arguable the most comforting of the whole film, in which we following a couple on their journey from Darlene picking her boyfriend up, all the way to their brutal murders in Lover’s Lane. One of the very early shots, which is from the POV within the car looking out the side window, is cinematically very beautiful. It’s also affective in triggering that unease within the viewer – I know that when the boy ran up to the car I thought the killer would be in the driver’s seat because of how ominous and ambiguous the perspective of the car had seemed leading up to that point.

The ‘god shot’ when the couple first drive into Lover’s lane is used to show just how deserted the area is and the lighting of the car headlights with the blackness all around creates a kind of entrapped feeling. Fincher also used close, tight shots from within the car to make you feel apart of the constriction, almost trapped with them. This ‘god’ perspective is not used the entire confrontation, until after the gunman is returning back from his car to ‘finish’ them off when he could see movement still.

Workshop Survival Guide

I’ve been a little slow with updating my blog this past week, but we all have a lazy week here and there! I’m back on track now though. Last Thursday we had a workshop as per usual. I thought I was running late, after having a near fainting experience the morning before, I was a little nervous on the train over. But I seemed to get there 10 minutes early, and the class was virtually empty.

We had a discussion about Project 3, which was very helpful. I got to hear other peoples ideas and who they were planning to interview, and I got to jot down some notes for my own piece. I tried to be silent, same as I will here, because I don’t really want to give much away before I’ve even started. But I am going to interview my dad, whose an artist!

Seth made a really good point about collecting ‘atmos’ (atmosphere) recordings for this project too, which I would never have thought of. Audio has never been my strong point, so it’ll be interesting trying to figure out the mic and stuff – especially since we have to borrow equipment from the uni.

Toward the end of the class we were told to get into groups of three to do a little recording task. Unfortunately one of my friends was sick, which meant myself and my other friend had to stay in a pair while some people were in 4’s. That made it a little difficult for us to complete the task, but we tried our best. We were given a camera and mic and asked to create a simple ‘how to survive the first 6 weeks of uni’ guide. Both of us were awkward and unhappy to be in front of the camera, which I think is funny – considering we’re all trying to get into the media industry. We are big fans of being BEHIND the camera…

Semiotics

Today’s lectorial got me a little more excited for our upcoming project – which is to make a short interview/documentary style clip that’s due in week 7. The topic of this week was ‘text analysis’ and we even had 2 different guest speakers (one virtual, one in person) to tell us a little more about the production process. It was interesting to learn some of the restrictions there would be for future filmmaking in the course – things like for heaven’s sake don’t use props like fake guns unless you want the SWAT team to appear… We also discussed where and how you can film on public and private property. Even places like national parks have a higher power who decides whether you can film there, which sounds exhausting, if I’m honest. But it’s good to know all this stuff now, before I get myself fined by the Vice Chancellor something equally terrible.

But we also discussed semiotics, which is a concept pretty familiar with me (shout out to year 12 media!). The whole idea is basically that there are codes that can be denoted within media that mean something to the audience. The example Brian used was the romantic connotations of red roses.

We did a little exercise sheet too, analysing a picture and decoding it in terms of semiotics as well as general analysis.

Paranormal activity

Okay, so I’ve never actually seen Paranormal Activity (because it looks really f**king scary), but I figured the title sort of fit. Maybe it doesn’t? I don’t know.

So last Thursday was my first day back at Uni after Easter Break. I expected the Workshop to go slow (it is 3 hours after all), but this week was a little different. Firstly, we watched all our second projects and of course mine went first. It was okay though, because then I wasn’t anxious while watching literally everyone else’s. I guess what I noticed was how different everyone’s was despite having the same restrictions and even sometimes, the same themes and shots. I thought that was a really positive sign, because we all clearly had very different visions which is always good in the Media industry.

Then we were given a workshop activity (the blog post title making anymore sense yet?) which was to split off into partners and record ambiance sounds and interview each other. Me and my friend messed around with that at first, answering the set questions sarcastically, but eventually we did the task. It’s surprisingly hard to ask and answer a question without stumbling over your words, let me tell you.

I guess next workshop will be dedicated to trying to edit and use that audio we recorded and make something new.

Mise En Scene

This week’s reading is on Mise En Scene and the film we watched in order to analyse this was The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I’m a fan of Wes Anderson and even more so of the French “put in scene” to which Mise En Scene refers to. I’d already seen The Life Aquatic, along with several other of Anderson’s quirky films. Like The Grand Budapest Hotel and Moonrise Kingdom, the aesthetic and cinematic beauty of The Life Aquatic is enough to draw you in. Personally, The Life Aquatic is not my favourite of his – storyline wise – but I was a fan of the Mise En Scene, luckily.

Year 12 Media taught me quite a bit about Mise En Scene, so even though I’ve done the readings, this is stuff I’m already pretty familiar with. In my own words, it’s basically everything within the scene from props to character’s position that create meaning. In The Life Aquatic, this stuff is pretty crucial.

The readings actually gave the example of George Melies (who we discussed all the way back in week one), and I can’t help drawing a comparison between Melies’ artistry and Anderson’s The Life Aquatic. I wouldn’t be surprised if Anderson was inspired by Melies, notably his A Trip to The Moon. Though generations apart, both utilised decretive sets and fantastical costumes to create a dreamy quality.

For example, the obvious set of Steve Zissou’s ship as we follow characters through the separate rooms is reminiscent of the cardboard space ship within Melies’ film. Other elements such as the puppeteer looking fish and aquatic animals that are stylistically similar to the props and sets within Melies’ film.

Pardon?

One of the things we touched on in the lectorial yesterday was a listening exercise that had me very confused, though I guess that was the point. We listened to a piece John Cage style – in other words, it wasn’t a piece at all. Until yesterday I didn’t know anything about this man, but now I know he’s an avant grade performer who would sit in front of an audience for a solid 5 minutes and not do a thing. The intention I guess was to make people feel uncomfortable and confused – like Rebecca demonstrated with us on Monday – but more importantly, to try and get the audience to really be alert to the sounds around them.

So after that, it got me thinking about what sounds I hear and what sounds I listen to. As someone whose perpetually wearing headphones, whether I’m listening to music or not (like right now…) I tend to miss a lot of the little sounds around me. This isn’t from a lack of appreciation (although maybe that plays a part to an extent), but I have always been very tuned in to noise and sound and easily distracted as a result. I remember shutting doors and telling my mum to turn off the radio at the other end of the house because I was being distracted while trying to read my book in silence.

Without getting too deep here, I want to mention that as a toddler I almost lost my hearing. I had to have surgery to prevent from going deaf (hence the sensitive ears) and additionally, I’ve grown up with a grandmother who was completely deaf. So really, sound has always been pretty prevalent for me. For as long as I remember I’ve been sensitive to sound – just last week I went to see the Force Awakens and I had to stuff tissue in my ears because it was too loud!

I think what John Cage was trying to do with his piece ‘4, 33” was incredibly obscure and clever. It made me listen to the little things around me for the rest of the day. I considered how I could tune in and out of conversations a meter, two meters away from me and really tested the lengths to which I could hear things most people overlook.

What Pitch Do I Think Is Perfect?

A really stupid title, I apologise for that. I’m just not feeling the creativity tonight! Sue me! Anyway…

The Lectorial today for Media 1 really interested me, even if a lot of it was sort of overwhelming. I’ve never thought about sound in the most technical way in terms of frequency, amplitude and wavelength. Whenever I’ve edited audio for a short it’s always been with great reluctance, and usually I’d play it by ear.

I also learnt today that there are 3 core types of sound: speech, music, sound. And then there’s noise, which is entirely unintentional. Our lecturer even suggested we talk a little bit about our favourite and least favourite sounds in a blog post… so guess what I’m doing!?

I guess my favourite sounds would be the domestic ones I experience daily, things like my cat purring or magpies in the morning. I love the sound of rain too, especially heavy rain and especially when I’m warm and safe inside.

As for the sounds I hate? The wooden screech whenever someone tries to pull across the shutters in my living room is definitely the worst. Sends a shiver down my spine, and in the worst way possible. I dislike any alarm sound I’ve used to wake me up for more than a month, to the point that it becomes a weird trigger and if I hear it anywhere else I become very agitated. Anything too loud or repetitive, or just plain annoying – for example I’m not a fan of all the construction drilling outside my Literature lecture at 8:30am this morning…